PAM. 

SEAM. 


Ollli  ECCLESIASTICAL,  POLITY. 

A S E 11  M 0 N 

DHI.IVFRPD  BFFORR  THE 

SYNOD 

OF  NEW-YORK  AND  NEW-JERSEY. 

IN  THE 

FIRST  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH,  BROOKLYN  Y Y WEDNESDAY  OCTOBER  25,  1856 

i 

li  EY. 

MY  THK 

EDWIN  F.  HATFIELD,  D . D . , 

PisVoR  OF  THR  NORTH  PRRSBTTERUS  CHTROH,  NEW-TORK 

| 

PUBLISHED  BY  THE  DIRECTION  OF  THE  SYNOD 

JOHN  A 

X EW-YOEK: 

GRAY,  PRINTER,  16  AND  18  JACOB  STREET. 

FIRE-PROOF  BUILDINGS. 

1 856. 

OUll  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 


A S E E M 0 N 


DELIVERED  BBPORB  TUE 


SYNOD  OF  NEW-YORK  AND  NEW-JEUSEY, 


IS  TUB 


FIRST  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH,  BROOKLYN,  N.  Y,  WEDNESDAY,  OCTOBER  22,  18>G. 


BY  THE 

REV.  EDWIX  F.  HATFIELD,  D.D., 

PASTOR  OF  THE  NORTH  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH,  NEW-YORK. 


PUBLISHED  BY  THE  DIRECTION  OF  THE  SYNOD. 


NEW-YORK: 

■JOHN  A.  GRAY,  PRINTER,  16  AND  18  JACOB  STREET. 

FIRE-PROOF  BUILDINGS. 

1856. 


' 


<Dur  ct-rdfsiastiral  ^lolito 


“ From  which  all  the  body,  by  joints  and  bands  having  nourishment  ministered, 
and  knit  together,  increaseth  with  tko  increase  of  God.” — Colos.  2 : 19. 


A beautiful  harmony  pervades  the  works  of  God.  Order 
and  symmetry  characterize  all  the  divine  creations  and  opera- 
tions. They  are  all  perfect — absolutely  and  relatively ; com- 
plete in  all  their  parts,  proportions,  and  combinations.  “As 
for  God,  his  way  is  perfect.” 

Of  all  the  works  of  God,  the  last  is  the  best,  if  best  there  can 
be,  where  all  is  good  and  perfect  in  its  kind.  The  greatest 
achievement  of  divine  wisdom,  the  greatest  display  of  the  grace 
and  the  glory  of  God,  the  crowning  work  of  the  creation,  was 
the  last.  Man  is  the  glory  of  God.  The  human  frame,  instinct 
with  life  and  thought,  emotion  and  will,  exhibits  more  of  the 
majesty  of  its  Creator,  than  the  wide  earth  itself,  “ and  the  full- 
ness thereof.”  In  the  material  of  this  curious  mechanism,  its 
texture  and  shape ; in  the  composition  and  configuration  of  the 
various  bones  and  muscles,  joints  and  ligaments,  nerves  and 
sinews,  veins  and  arteries ; in  the  construction  of  the  aliment- 
ary organs ; in  the  conformation  of  the  heart  and  lungs,  the 
veins  and  arteries,  the  blood  and  other  vital  fluids ; in  the  nice 
adjustment  of  the  various  membranes,  the  skin,  the  tongue,  the 
ear,  the  eye,  the  brain ; in  each,  in  all,  God  is  seen.  How  ad- 
mirable the  order,  the  symmetry,  the  beauty,  the  strength,  as 
well  as  the  compactness,  of  the  body  “ fitly  joined  together  and 
compacted  by  that  which  every  joint  supplieth,”  pervaded  with 
vital  air,  and  actuated  throughout  by  the  living,  thinking,  self- 
determining,  all-controlling  soul ! ITow  strange  the  process  by 


4 


which  this  gifted  being  is  produced,  sustained,  perfected ; by 
which  the  infant  becomes  a man,  and  attains  to  the  full  matur- 
ity of  its  stature,  its  strength,  its  capabilities  and  susceptibi- 
lities; by  which  “all  the  body,  by  joints  and  bands  having 
nourishment  ministered,  and  knit  together,  increaseth  with  the 
increase  of  God !” 

Such,  in  their  kind,  though  inferior,  are  all  the  works  of  the 
Divine  Architect.  Form,  order,  compactness,  symmetry, 
beauty,  strength,  more  or  less  characterize  all  his  creations — 
the  vegetable  and  the  animal,  the  material  and  the  immaterial, 
the  satellite  and  the  planet,  the  sun  and  the  system  of  suns. 
The  same  unvarying  laws  control  them  all ; they  act  or  subsist 
in  perfect  harmony  with  the  grand  designs  of  the  all-wise 
Creator. 

“All  are  but  parts  of  one  stupendous  whole, 

Whoso  body  Nature  is,  and  God  the  souL” 

The  moral,  not  less  than  the  natural,  government  of  the  Al- 
mighty presents  these  aspects.  The  whole  intelligent  creation 
of  God  constitutes  but  one  immense  empire.  The  various  or- 
ders of  rational  beings — thrones,  principalities,  and  powers — 
are  subjects  of  the  Great  King,  dependent  on  the  will,  and 
controlled  by  the  word,  of  the  all- designing,  all-seeing,  and  all- 
governing  Mind.  “For  in  him  we  live,  and  move,  and  have 
our  being.”  “For  of  him,  and  through  him,  and  to  him,  are 
all  things.” 

As  a part  of  this  vast  community,  and  in  fulfillment  of  the 
one  great  plan,  the  human  family  subsist.  Man  is  placed  upon 
the  earth,  not  to  isolate  himself  from  his  kind,  but  to  act  in 
harmony  with  man,  to  attach  himself  to  his  race,  and  become 
part  and  parcel  of  an  organized  and  orderly  community.  The 
offspring  and  the  root,  lie  partakes  of  the  nature,  and  depends 
on  the  kind  offices,  of  his  fellow-man.  He  may  not,  must  not, 
can  not,  if  ho  would,  be  independent  of  his  brother,  lie  was 
made  a social  being,  with  endowments  for  society,  with  facul- 
ties that  can  attain  their  proper  growth,  and  find  their  full  and 
appropriate  development,  only  in  association — in  the  organized 
fraternity. 

“ Man  iu  society  is  like  a flower 
Blown  in  its  native  bed ; ’t  is  there  alone 
Ilis  faculties,  expanded  in  full  bloom, 

Sliino  out;  there  only  reach  their  proper  use.” 


o 


A careful  attention  to  mutual  rights  and  interests,  a strict 
observance  of  law  and  order,  as  well  as  the  exercise  of  mutual 
regard,  are  indispensable  to  the  well-being  of  society.  It  must 
have  government.  Law  and  order  must  be  established.  The 
child  must  be  under  law  to  the  parent;  the  servant  to  the  mas- 
ter; the  scholar  to  the  teacher;  the  subject  to  the  ruler;  the 
citizen  to  the  commonwealth  ; the  less  to  the  greater.  This  it 
is  that  keeps  in  motion,  and  binds  in  one,  the  universe  of  being. 
This  produces  the  harmony  of  the  spheres. 

11  Order  is  heaven’s  first  law.” 

These  general  principles  are,  in  the  highest  degree,  appli- 
cable to  the  great  community  of  believers.  “The  general  as- 
sembly and  church  of  the  first-born  which  are  written  in 
heaven,”  are  constituted  in  conformity  to  this  essential  law. 
Every  individual  of  this  highest  class  of  human  society,  how- 
ever peculiar  may  be  the  circumstances  by  which  he  becomes 
a child  of  God,  is  made,  by  the  regenerating  grace  of  God,  one 
of  a household  of  common  origin,  common  sympathies,  com- 
mon interests,  aims  and  ends.  “ Jerusalem  is  builded  as  a city 
that  is  compacted  together.”  And  such  is  the  construction  of 
“the  holy  city,  Xcw  Jerusalem,  coming  down  from  God  out 
of  heaven,  prepared  as  a bride  adorned  for  her  husband.” 

The  redeemed  from  among  men,  of  whatever  age,  clime,  or 
condition,  are  uniformly  represented,  in  the  book  of  revelation, 
as  one.  They  are  an  aggregate  unit ; an  orderly  community, 
of  which  the  Son  of  God,  “ the  Author  and  Finisher  of  our  faith,” 
is  the  Governor.  They  are  spoken  of  as  members  of  the  same 
body,  mutually  subsistent,  fitly  compacted  and  knit  together, 
and  to  Christ  their  head,  by  joints  and  bands,  deriving  from 
their  head,  life,  health,  and  strength.  “ The  bread  which  we 
break,”  says  Paul,  “ is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  body  of 
Christ  ? For  we,  being  many,  are  one  bread  and  one  body  ; 
for  we  are  all  partakers  of  that  one  bread.”  “ For,  as  we  have 
many  members  in  one  body,  and  all  members  have  not  the 
same  office,  so  we,  being  many,  are  one  body  in  Christ,  and 
every  one  members  one  of  another.”  “ For,  as  the  body  is  one 
and  hath  many  member’s,  and  all  the  members  of  that  one  body, 
being  many,  are  one  body,  so  also  is  Christ ; for  by  one  Spirit 
are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body,  whether  we  be  Jews  or  Gen- 


6 


tiles,  whether  we  be  bond  or  free ; and  have  been  all  made  to 
drink  into  one  Spirit.”  “Now  ye  are  the  body  of  Christ,  and 
members  in  particular.”  He  is  “ the  Head  over  all  things  to 
the  church,  which  is  his  body,  the  fullness  of  him  that  filleth  all 
in  all.”  The  ministers  of  Christ  are  designed  “for  the  edifying 
of  the  body  of  Christ,  till  we  all  come,  in  the  unity  of  the  faith 
and  of  the  knowledge  of  the  Son  of  God,  unto  a perfect  man, 
unto  the  measure  of  the  stature  of  the  fullness  of  Christ,” 
“ from  whom  the  whole  body,  fitly  joined  together  and  com- 
pacted by  that  which  every  joint  supplieth,  according  to  the 
effectual  working  in  the  measure  of  every  part,  maketli  increase 
of  the  body  unto  the  edifying  of  itself  in  love.”  “ For  we  are 
members  of  his  body,  of  his  flesh,  and  of  his  bones.”  He  is 
“the  Head,  from  which  all  the  body,  by  joints  and  bands  hav- 
ing nourishment  ministered,  and  knit  together,  increaseth  with 
the  increase  of  God.” 

Such  are  the  beautiful  illustrations,  and  so  forcible,  by  which, 
on  various  occasions,  are  divinely  exhibited  the  coherency, 
compactness,  order,  symmetry,  and  unity  of  the  household  of 
believers.  They  are  applied  now  to  the  whole  family,  and  then 
to  a particular  branch  of  the  family;  now  to  the  universal 
Church,  and  then  to  an  organized  association  of  Christian  dis- 
ciples of  the  same  vicinity,  meeting  together  for  the  stated 
worship  of  God.  The  true  followers  of  Jesus,  however  divided 
and  separated,  one  from  another,  by  physical  barriers,  or  con- 
ventional arrangements,  are  one  commonwealth,  bound  toge- 
ther in  faith,  and  love,  and  the  order  of  the  Gospel ; united  to 
Christ,  their  common  Lord,  as  the  body  to  the  head ; and  from 
him  deriving  their  light,  life,  and  vigor.  By  him  they  are  also 
united  to  each  other — are  members  one  of  another ; each  be- 
liever, of  his  particular  church;  and  each  particular  church,  of 
the  .community  of  churches  in  the  city,  province,  state,  or  na- 
tion,— in  the  wrorld.  None  are,  or  can  be,  independent  of  others ; 
no  church,  of  other  churches ; no  part,  of  the  whole.  A bond 
of  brotherhood,  mightier  than  in  all  mere  earthly  associations, 
binds  them  together  in  one.  Made  “ partakers  of  the  divine 
nature,”  they  are  made  partakers  of  each  other ; and  so  are,  and 
are  to  be,  more  or  less  visibly,  “fitly  joined  together  and  com- 
pacted,” “by  joints  and  bands,”  and  knit  together  in  one  mind 
and  heart,  and  spirit. 


These  principles,  so  fully  exhibited  in  the  word  of  God,  are 
to  be  kept  in  view  in  the  determination  of  the  outer  form  of 
the  Christian  Church.  To  every  organization  of  human  society, 
must,  in  the  nature  of  things,  be  given  some  particular  shape. 
Formless  it  can  not  be.  If  the  followers  of  Christ  associate  for 
the  maintenance  of  public  worship,  and  the  celebration  of  the 
divinely-instituted  ordinances,  as  the  Gospel  plainly  requires, 
they  must  have  some  particular  form  and  order  of  organization. 
All  forms  are  not  alike  adapted  to  secure  a particular  end. 
Some  are  far  more  likely  than  others  to  effect  a specified  object. 
To  say,  with  the  bard  of  Twickenham, 

“ For  forms  of  government,  let  fools  contest ; 

Whate’er  is  best  administered  is  best,” 

may  seem  to  savor  of  a large-hearted  catholicity ; but  such  a 
saying  can  not  stand  the  test  of  experience,  and  is  proved  false 
on  every  page  of  human  history.  Those  are  the  best  forms 
that  most  readily  and  most  surely  promote  the  true  ends  of 
government,  whether  in  Church  or  state.  Such  forms  have 
been  found  and  tried,  in  respect  to  the  state.  Such  may  be 
found  for  the  Church. 

Numerous  systems  of  church  polity  have  been  devised  and 
adopted  for  the  government  of  the  household  of  faith.  The 
most  of  them  are,  by  their  advocates,  represented  as  taught  or 
sustained  by  the  Scriptures.  These  representations  can  not  all 
be  correct.  Some  of  them  are  at  fault.  The  very  fact  of  so 
much  variety  would  seem  to  indicate  a want  of  precision,  in 
this  respect,  on  the  part  of  the  sacred  writers.  It  may  be,  that 
a slight  diversity  of  form  prevailed  among  the  churches  founded 
by  the  apostles  and  their  associates,  according  as  the  churches 
were  composed  of  Jews  or  Gentiles,  Greeks  or  Romans.  The 
circumstances  of  the  people,  the  peculiarities  of  the  place,  the 
customs  of  the  nation,  may  have  had  much  to  do  in  determin- 
ing, if  not  the  kind,  yet  the  minor  details,  of  their  ecclesiastical 
organizations.  Such  was  unquestionably  the  fact.  Much  that 
pertained  to  form  was  left  to  be  developed,  as  always,  by  a 
fuller  experience  of  the  necessities  of  the  case. 

But,  if  it  be  admitted  that  no  one  form  of  church  govern- 
ment is  clearly  and  undeniably  indicated  in  the  written  word, 
are  there  not  principles  there  inculcated,  from  which  we  can 


8 


gather  the  system,  in  whole,  or  in  part,  which  is  best  adapted 
to  secure  the  ends  for  which  the  Church  of  Christ  is  constituted ; 
the  system  that  is  best  conformed  to  the  teachings  and  prac- 
tices of  the  apostles,  and  most  conducive  to  the  healthful 
growth  of  the  Church  in  truth  and  goodness?  We  are  Presby- 
terians— an  organic  body  of  Christians,  professing  a common 
faith,  practising  a common  worship,  and  submitting  to  a com- 
mon form  of  government.  In  the  good  providence  of  God,  the 
pastors  and  delegates  of  our  churches  assembled  in  solemn 
convocation,  nearly  seventy  years  ago,  and,  after  full  consider- 
ation, adopted  “a  plan  of  government  and  discipline,”  for  “the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America by 
which  plan,  or  polity,  amended  subsequently  in  some  minor 
particulars,  our  Church,  in  the  administration  of  its  ecclesias- 
tical affairs,  has  been  governed  to  the  present  day.  Are  the 
principles,  by  which  our  fathers  were  guided  in  the  adoption  of 
our  ecclesiastical  polity,  conformed  to  the  general  principles 
of  the  inspired  word,  and  such  as  are  best  adapted  to  secure 
the  true  ends  of  church  government  ? 

What  are  the  main  principles  of  our  ecclesiastical  polity  ? 
They  may  be  grouped  in  a few  particulars. 


I.  The  unity  and  universality  of  the  Church  of  Christ. 


It  never  entered  into  the  minds  of  the  framers  of  our  consti- 
tution to  limit  the  grace  of  God  to  their  own  communion. 
They  had  their  particular  views  of  theological  truth,  and  dif- 
fered on  many  points  of  faith  from  their  brethren  of  other  deno- 
minations. They  were  ardently  attached  to  their  time-honored 
and  simple  forms  of  worship.  They  had  long  practised,  and 
fully  tested,  the  order  and  discipline  to  which  they  gave  at 
that  time  a wider  expansion.  They  greatly  preferred  these 
forms  to  all  others.  But  they  had  no  thought  of  saying,  in  the 
self-righteous  language  of  ancient  Israel,  “ The  temple  of  the 
Lord — the  temple  of  the  Lord — the  temple  of  the  Lord  arc 
these !”  They  regarded  themselves  and  their  churches  as  but 
a branch  of  the  true  vine,  but  an  humble  part  of  the  twelve 
tribes  of  Israel.  They  asserted,  for  their  faith  and  order,  no 
monopoly  of  gospel  grace,  no  exclusive  occupancy  of  the  fold 


0 


of  “ the  Good  Shepherd.”  Most  gladly  did  they  recognize  the 
cheering  fact,  so  beautifully  expressed  by  their  Lord,  “ Other 
sheep  I have  which  are  not  of  this  fold.”  They  extended, 
therefore,  the  fellowship  of  a common  brotherhood  to  “all  that 
in  every  place  call  upon  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord, 
both  theirs  and  ours.” 

This  universal  brotherhood  they  regarded,  very  properly,  in 
a twofold  aspect — as  visible  and  invisible ; as  seen,  and  heard, 
and  known  of  men ; or  as  seen  by  the  heart-searching  God.  The 
former  they  recognized  as  embracing  the  wliolc  body  of  pro- 
fessed believers ; the  latter,  only  such  as  God  knows  to  be  his. 
They  discriminated,  by  this  distinction,  between  the  true  and 
the  false,  the  precious  and  the  vile,  the  clean  and  the  unclean, 
the  genuine  and  the  counterfeit ; according  to  that  scripture  : 
“ lie  is  not  a Jew  which  is  one  outwardly,  neither  is  that  cir- 
cumcision which  is  outward  in  the  flesh ; but  he  is  a Jew  which 
is  one  inwardly,  and  circumcision  is  that  of  the  heart,  in  the 
spirit  and  not  in  the  letter ; whose  praise  is  not  of  men,  but  of 
God.” 

“ The  catholic  or  universal  Church  which  is  invisible,”  they 
say,  “ consists  of  the  whole  number  of  the  elect  that  have  been, 
are,  or  shall  be,  gathered  into  one,  tinder  Christ,  the  head 
thereof;  and  is  the  spouse,  the  body,  the  fullness  of  Him  that 
filleth  all  in  all.”*  This  definition  is  clearly  conformed  to  the 
oracles  of  divine  truth.  This  is  the  Church  that  the  Redeemer 
“ purchased  with  his  own  blood,”  “ that  he  might  sanctify  and 
cleanse  it  with  the  washing  of  water,  by  the  word,  that  he  might 
present  it  to  himself  a glorious  church,  not  having  spot  or 
wrinkle,  or  any  such  thing ; but  that  it  should  be  holy  and 
Avithout  blemish.”  It  comprehends  the  church  militant  and 
the  church  triumphant ; all  the  regenerate  that  are,  and  that 
are  to  be,  on  the  earth,  of  all  nations,  tribes,  and  kindred;  Avith 
all  the  ransomed  host  in  glory.  This  includes  not  a feAv 
who  have  been  denied  a place  in  the  visible  church  ; and  some, 
too,  whom  the  weakness  of  their  faith,  or  feebleness  of  their 
hope,  or  the  wrath  of  man,  or  the  want  of  opportunity,  has  kept 
from  a profession  of  the  true  faith.  It  excludes  a vast  number, 
who,  in  ignorance,  or  hypocrisy,  or  by  virtue  of  their  birth  and 
lineage,  or  by  intimidation,  have  been  brought  within  the  pale 


* Conf.  of  Faith,  xxv..  1. 


10 


of  an  external  Christianity.  This  invisible  Church  is  the  true 
Church — the  only  one.  None  but  they  who  have  been  chosen, 
called,  regenerated,  and  justified  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  are,  or 
can  be,  the  children  of  God  and  heirs  of  heaven.  All  such, 
however  regarded  by  man,  and  in  whatever  ecclesiastical  con- 
nection they  are  found,  Papist  or  Protestant,  Prelatical  or  Pu- 
ritan, belong  to  this  honored  brotherhood.  Nor  can  one  of 
them  be  cut  off,  or  cast  out,  by  any  authority  or  ordinance  of 
man,  by  excision,  exclusion,  or  excommunication,  from  “ the 
general  assembly  and  church  of  the  first  born.”  The  hypo- 
crite, the  unregenerate,  the  children  of  the  wicked  one,  may 
find,  and  in  all  ages  have  found,  their  way  into  the  church  visi- 
ble ; into  the  church  invisible,  never. 

The  church  visible,  according  to  the  symbols  of  our  fathers, 
“ is  also  catholic  or  universal  under  the  Gospel,  not  confined  to 
one  nation,  as  before  under  the  law,”  and  “consists  of  all  those 
throughout  the  world  that  profess  the  true  religion,  with  their 
children.”*  As  this  catholic  or  universal  church  is  not  limited, 
as  of  old,  by  blood  or  national  affinities,  neither  is  it  by  terri- 
torial or  denominational  boundaries.  All  of  every  name,  “ in 
all  ages  and  places  of  the  world,”  who  “profess  the  true  reli- 
gion,” are  enfolded  within  its  ample  bosom.  None  are  ex- 
cluded ; or  may  arrogate  to  themselves  the  sole  occupancy  of 
the  house  of  God.  If  asked,  “ Which,  the  Episcopal  or  the 
Presbyterian,  is  the  true  Church?”  we  reply,  “Neither:”  just 
as  the  foot  is  not  the  body,  as  the  door  is  not  the  house,  as  a 
part  is  not  the  whole.  We  find  the  visible  church  wherever 
“ the  true  religion”  is  professed.  We  accord  to  all  professing 
Christians  a place  in  this  lower  house,  but  not  the  house  itself. 
WT e meet  them  all  on  the  broad  platform  of  a common  Christ- 
ianity. No  figment  of  apostolical  succession,  or  of  prelatical 
grace,  separates  us  from  other  branches  of  the  Church  of  Christ; 
nor  yet  a peculiar  administration  of  one  of  the  ordinances.  We 
know  nothing  of  “ close  communion.”  To  the  sacramental 
board,  the  common  heritage  of  the  Church,  we  receive,  and 
welcome  with  open  arms,  the  whole  household  of  faith.  We 
“believe  in  the  Catholic  Church,”  excluding  none  who  hold 
the  Head.  In  the  highest  sense,  ours  is  a catholic  polity. 

Put,  in  these  admissions,  we  are  far  from  making  light  of 


* Conf.  of  Faith,  xxv.,  2. 


11 


theological  differences.  Some  portions  of  the  visible  church 
partake  more  of  the  spirit  of  the  Master,  and  conform  more 
fully  to  the  truth,  than  others.  “ This  Catholic  Church,”  we 
maintain,  “hath  been  sometimes  more,  sometimes  less,  visible. 
And  particular  churches,  which  are  members  thereof,  are  more 
or  less  pure,  according  as  the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  is  taught 
and  embraced,  ordinances  administered,  and  public  worship 
performed,  more  or  less  purely  in  them.”  * “ The  purest 

churches  under  heaven,”  as  we  believe,  “are  subject  both  to 
mixture  and  error;  and  some  have  so  degenerated,  as  to  become 
no  churches  of  Christ,  but  synagogues  of  Satan.”f  In  accord- 
ance with  these  views,  we  do  not  hesitate  to  speak  of  “ the  Pope 
of  Rome,”  as  “ that  antichrist,  that  man  of  sin  and  son  of  per- 
dition, that  exalteth  himself  in  the  Church,  against  Christ,  and 
all  that  is  called  God.”;}:  Our  large-hearted  charity  does  not 

require  us  to  regard  the  Papacy  as  the  true  Church,  or  even  a 
part  of  it;  nor  to  recognize  the  ministers  of  antichrist  as  a part 
of  the  true  ministry.  With  the  most  strenuous  of  the  anti- 
Papal  portions  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  we  protest  against  its 
unfounded  claims,  and  unrighteous  usurpations.  We  hold  to 
the  Catholic  Church ; but  deny  that  the  Roman,  or  the  Greek, 
or  the  Anglican,  is,  has  been,  or  can  be,  the  one  only  Church 
of  Christ.  We  abjure  alike  the  Papal  and  the  Prelatical  ap- 
propriation of  the  channels  of  divine  grace.  We  are  Catholics, 
but  not  Roman  Catholics.  We  are  Presbyterians,  but  Christ- 
ians more,  “fellow  citizens  with  the  saints”  of  every  name, 
“ and  of  the  household  of  God.” 

Our  system  also  recognizes, 

II.  The  subdivision  of  the  Catholic  Church  into  particular 
churches. 


The  necessity  of  such  a distinction  is  obvious.  “As  this  im- 
mense multitude,”  who  constitute  the  universal  Church,  “ can 
not  meet  together,  in  one  place,  to  hold  communion,  or  to  wor- 
ship God,  it  is  reasonable,  and  warranted  by  Scripture  example, 
that  they  should  be  divided  into  many  particular  churches.”§ 


* Conf.  of  Faith,  xxv.,  4. 

* Conf.  of  Faith,  xxv.,  G. 


f Conf.  of  Faith,  xxv.,  5. 
§ Form  of  Gov.,  il,  3. 


12 


The  ii(iiA7jOLa  of  the  sacred  writers,  though  properly  denoting  a 
convocation  or  assembly,  is,  at  times,  to  be  understood  of  the 
whole  body  of  believers.  More  commonly,  however,  it  is  to 
be  received  literally,  as  denoting  a particular  congregation  of 
real  or  professing  Christians.  The  Scriptures  speak  of  “the 
churches  of  God,”  “ of  Christ,”  “ of  the  saints,”  “ of  the  Gen- 
tiles,” “of  Judea,”  “of  Asia,”  “of  Galatia,”  and  “of  Mace- 
donia;” “the  church  of  Ephesus,”  “of  Smyrna,”  “of  Sardis,” 
and  others. 

Any  number  of  Christian  people  “professing  the  true  reli- 
gion,” and  meeting  statedly  for  the  worship  of  God  and  for  the 
administration  of  Christian  ordinances,  is  a church,  whatever 
may  be  the  peculiarities  of  their  discipline,  or  the  mode  of  their 
organization.  They  may  be  more  or  less  pure  in  faith,  and 
scriptural  in  worship  ; more  or  less  conformed,  in  their  eccle- 
siastical order,  to  the  apostolical  model ; and  yet  be  entitled  to 
the  rights  and  privileges  of  a Christian  church. 

“ This  principle,”  says  a recent  writer,  “ is  not  only  funda- 
mental and  organific,  but  really  distinctive  in  the  Congrega- 
tional theory,”  as  distinguished  not  only  “from  that  of  the  Pre- 
latist,”  but  “the  Presbyterian”  also.  ¥e  are  told,  on  the 
same  authority,  that  our  system,  “ as  strictly  interpreted  by  its 
standards,”  “does  not  even  recognize  the  existence  of  local 
churches,  but  only  of  one  comprehensive  and  general  Church, 
in  which  there  are  embraced  distinct  congregations;”  and  that 
“ it  holds  certain  antecedent  processes,  conducted  by  the  mem- 
bers of  a specified  order,  to  be  essential  to  their  correct  and 
scriptural  existence.”* 

Passing  by  the  implied  contradiction  in  these  two  affirma- 
tions, we  have  only  to  appeal  to  the  very  language  of  our 
standards,  to  show  how  easy  it  is  for  a zealous  sectary  to  deceive 
himself  and  others,  in  a blind  partiality  for  his  own  communion. 
Our  polity  knows  as  little  of  the  “ consolidation  of  churches 
into  a mass,”f  as  that  with  which  it  is  so  unfavorably  contrasted. 
Our  Form  of  Government  treats  of  the  “ ordinances  in  a parti- 
cular church,”  “ regularly  constituted  with  its  proper  officers ;” 
“ of  the  church  session  ” as  the  officers  “ of  a particular  congre- 
gation ;”  of  “ a church  ” “ without  a pastor,”  and  of  the  watch 

* “Congregationalism,  by  Richard  S.  Storrs,  Jr.,”  pp.  11,  13. 

f “Congregationalism.'’  p.  37. 


13 


to  be  kept  over  “ the  members  of  the  church,"  by  “ the  church 
session.”  It  requires,  at  the  installation  of  officers  in  a parti- 
cular congregation,  an  answer  to  the  question,  “ Do  you,  the 
members  of  this  church,  acknowledge  and  receive  this  broth- 
er,” or  these  brethren  ? It  specifies  that  candidates  for  the  min- 
istry are  to  be  “ regular  members  of  some  particular  church 
shows  how  a bishop  is  to  “bo  translated  from  one  church  to 
another,”  and  what  “ any  church  desiring  to  call  a settled  min- 
ister,” is  to  do  ; and  says,  that  the  installment,  in  such  a case. 
“ consists  in  constituting  a pastoral  relation  between  him  and 
the  people  of  that  particular  church.”*  It  uses  the  words, 
“congregation”  and  “church”  indiscriminately,  as  denoting 
the  particular,  or  local,  association  of  believers  in  a covenant 
relation. 

Our  system,  “ as  strictly  interpreted  by  its  standards,”  there- 
fore, recognizes  not  only  “one  comprehensive  and  general 
Church,”  as  is  right  and  proper,  “ but,  as  really  and  truly  as 
the  rival  system,  “ the  existence  of  local  churches,”  having  all 
the  appropriate  functions  of  a church ; with  a distinct  member- 
ship, associated  by  covenant ; with  officers  chosen  by  them- 
selves; dependent  on  no  other  organization,  or  “specified  order” 
of  individuals  beyond  and  above  them,  for  the  administration 
of  the  ordinances,  for  the  exercise  of  internal  discipline,  and 
for  the  management  of  their  particular  affairs.  Strange  as  it 
may  seem  to  those  who  speak  so  disparagingly  of  the  autonomy 
of  our  congregations  or  churches,  and  so  frequently  ring  the 
changes  upon  “ the  iron  rule  of  Presbytery,”  “ understanding 
neither  wliat  they  say  nor  whereof  they  affirm,”  our  Form  of 
Government  nowhere  specifies  the  mode  of  proceeding  in  the 
organization  of  our  particular  churches ; nowhere  defines  the 
“ antecedent  processes  ” of  a regular  formation,  nor  “the  mem- 
bers of  a specified  order  ” through  whom  the  organization  is  to 
be  effected  ; nowhere  speaks  of  any  set  forms  as  “ essential  to 
their  correct  and  scriptural  existence bnt  leaves  the  people 
to  proceed  in  such  a way  as  their  own  judgment  may  dictate. 
“A  particular  church,”  it  says,  “ consists  of  a number  of  pro- 
fessing Christians,  with  their  offspring,  voluntarily  associated 
together  for  divine  worship  and  godly  living,  agreeably  to  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  and  submitting  to  a certain  form  of  govern- 


* Form  of  Gov.,  vii.,  is.,  xiii.,  xiv.,  xvi. 


14 


ment.”* * * §  Nothing  can  be  more  liberal,  or  savor  less  of  the 
rigid  rule  of  sect. 

As  has  been  said  in  praise  of  a rival  system,  we  may  say  of 
our  own : “ There  is  no  precise  law  and  pattern  of  organization, 
which  must  be  adhered  to,  and  a deviation  from  which  inval- 
idates the  proceeding.  The  whole  is  a matter  of  free  consent 
and  mutual  adjustment.  Upon  the  platform  of  their  common 
faith,  the  associated  disciples,  by  their  agreement  with  each 
other,  erect  their  own  church  organization ; an  organization 
complete  within  itself,  and  rightfully  independent  of  every 
other. ”f  Not  a word  in  our  Constitution  teaches  otherwise. 
The  church  may  call  in  the  aid  of  one  or  more  of  the  ministry, 
or  apply  to  a Presbytery  to  aid  them  in  their  organization ; but 
not  necessarily.  They  may  choose  to  associate  with  other 
churches  similarly  constituted,  or  not.  If  they  approve  “ of  the 
government  and  discipline  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  these 
United  States, they  may  be  admitted  to  the  fellowship  of  our 
churches,  and  not  a word  asked  as  to  the  antecedent  processes 
of  their  formation. 

To  all  intents  and  purposes,  theoretically  and  practically, 
each  of  our  congregations  of  believers  is  a complete  church 
within  itself — as  truly  so  as  a Congregational  church.  “ It  is,” 
to  use  the  words  of  another,  “ a young  republic,  having  its 
popular  assemblies,  its  delegated  representatives,  its  local  tri- 
bunal, its  independent  by-laws,  and  the  entire  and  exclusive 
management  of  all  matters  which  are  purely  local.  Each  con- 
gregation is  thus  a commonwealth,  as  truly  as  each  synod.  It 
has  its  own  important  and  independent  sphere  of  action,  and  is 
a type  of  the  general  government  of  the  whole  Church.  Here 
the  laity — the  people — rule  and  reign.”§ 

The  same  necessity  of  mutual  watchfulness,  that  prompts  the 
individual  Christian  to  associate  himself  with  other  Christians 
by  covenant  engagements,  may  prompt  the  individual  church 
to  associate  with  other  churches  ; but  it  loses  thereby  nothing 
of  its  prerogatives  as  a church  of  Christ.  It  is  none  the  less  a 
church,  because  it  enjoys  the  orderly  fellowship  of  other  simi- 

* Form  of  Gov.,  ii.,  4. 

t “ Congregationalism,”  pp.  28,  29. 

t Form  of  Gov.,  xiii.,  4. 

§ “Ecclesiastical  Republicanism,  by  Thomas  Smyth,”  p.  81. 


15 


lar  organizations.  It  enjoys  all  the  advantages  of  a Congrega- 
tional church,  and  more.  It  secures,  by  our  system,  peculiar 
privileges.  What  it  loses  of  independency  is  of  its  own  prefer- 
ence, and  is  more  than  compensated  by  what  it  gains. 

In  holding  these  principles,  and  practically  maintaining  them, 
as  in  all  our  churches,  we  can  not  see,  as  has  been  intimated, 
that  we  are  “ in  advance  of”  our  system ; or  that  our  Form  ol 
Government  has  but  “ little  sympathy  with  the  principle  ” of 
the  completeness  of  its  local  churches.  So  far  as  the  experience 
of  our  denomination  extends,  we  have  yet  to  learn  that  any  one 
of  our  particular  congregations  is  not  every  whit  a church. 

Advancing  upon  these  principles,  we  recognize  also, 


III.  An  organized  confederacy  of  particular  churches. 


The  right  of  any  number  of  similarly-constituted  churches  to 
combine  and  associate  together,  under  specified  conditions  not 
involving  a sacrifice  of  principle,  for  mutual  edification,  and  for 
the  advancement  of  the  common  interests  of  truth  and  godli- 
ness, can  not  be  questioned.  If,  as  claimed  by  the  churches  of 
another  denomination,  “ each  local  society  of  believers,  having 
once,  by  its  own  act,  been  constituted  as  a church,  is  therefore 
self-complete,  and  self-controlling,  and  rightfully  independent 
of  the  jurisdiction  of  others,”*  then,  surely,  it  may  determine 
for  itself  to  form  a partnership  with  others  similarly  organized. 
The  right  of  self-control  must  include  the  right  of  forming  alli- 
ances with  others ; as  in  the  case  of  the  sexes  and  the  conjugal 
union ; as  in  the  case  of  mercantile  partnerships ; or  as  in  the 
union  of  political  states.  If  this  right  be  denied  to  other 
churches,  we  claim  for  our  own  a higher  liberty,  a better  sys- 
tem of  ecclesiastical  polity,  more  complete,  and,  to  say  the 
least,  not  less  scriptural. 

Nothing  in  God’s  word,  whether  of  precept  or  practice,  de- 
nies this  right  to  the  local  church,  or  forbids  its  exercise.  Much 
appears  in  both  to  favor  it.  The  Jewish  Church  was  one  body. 
Whatever  were  the  provisions  for  keeping  up  the  worship  of 
God  on  the  Sabbath,  previous  to  the  captivity,  and  however 
extensively  synagogues,  or  churches,  were  organized  subse- 


* “Congregationalism,”  p.  27. 


16 


cjuently,  the  people  were  one,  and  their  Church  one.  A parti- 
cular community  of  Israelites,  residents  of  the  same  neighbor- 
hood, might  hand  together  as  a an  eMchTjota,  a congrega- 
tion, a church;  and  meet  statedly,  on  the  Sabbath  and  at  other 
times,  for  the  celebration  of  divine  worship ; and  possess  all  the 
elements  of  completeness  as  an  organized  association ; yet  they 
did  not  thereby  cease  to  be  part  and  parcel  of  that  ecclesiastical 
commonwealth,  the  pattern  of  which  was  shown  in  the  holy 
mount,  extending  over  the  whole  land  of  Israel.  It  formed  no 
part  of  the  divine  counsel  to  institute  a system  of  local  organiz- 
ations, each  of  which  should  be  rightfully  and  actually  sub- 
ject to  no  extraneous  control,  under  law  to  no  higher  organiza- 
tion, nor  in  any  sense  amenable  to  other  churches,  “ except  as 
it  freely  submits  to  and  invites”*  their  counsel  on  special 
occasions.  The  chosen  people  of  God  were  bound  together  by 
the  strong  bonds  of  family,  kindred,  tribe,  and  a common  pro- 
genitor, in  the  ecclesiastical  as  well  as  the  political  common- 
wealth. 

The  first  Christian  churches  were  gathered  out  of  the  Jewish 
Church.  As  followers  of  Christ  they  had  been  taught  by  their 
Lord  to  look  upon  themselves  as  members  one  of  another;  that, 
under  the  new  dispensation,  believers  were  more  one  than 
ever  ; that,  instead  of  being  released  from  the  obligation  of  a 
visible  recognition  of  brotherhood,  a far  higher  obligation  now 
rested  on  them,  as  partakers  of  divine  grace,  to  give  a practical 
demonstration  of  their  oneness  with  Christ  and  with  each  other. 
Their  inspired  teachers  urged  upon  them  this  specific  duty. 
They  illustrated  this  oneness  by  a reference,  as  we  have  seen, 
to  the  human  body.  They  taught,  not  merely  that  the  individ- 
ual was  one  with  the  members  of  a local  church,  as  at  Phil- 
ippi,  or  Corinth,  but  that  every  local  church  was  itself  but  an 
inseparable  member  of  the  body  of  believers,  as  truly  as  the 
hand,  or  the  foot,  of  the  human  body ; that  none  were  independ- 
ent of  others. 

Accordingly,  wo  find  them  banding  together  as  one,  for  the 
promotion  of  a common  cause,  the  advancement  of  the  Ile- 
dcemer’s  kingdom.  They  were  more  in  number,  even  in  Jeru- 
salem, than  could  meet  together  statedly  for  the  worship  of 
God,  and  yet  they  were  but  one  Church,  though  composed  of 

* “ Congregationalism,"  p.  28. 


17 


many  congregations.  Surrounded  by  eager  foes,  ever  watchful 
for  their  destruction,  they  felt  the  need  of  combination,  of  mu- 
tual assistance  in  every  practicable  form.  Their  common 
interests  are  made  the  care  of  all.  Councils  or  synods  are 
convened,  occasionally  at  first,  and  then  statedly,  for  advisement 
and  adjudication.  They  recognize  a higher  jurisdiction  than 
the  brotherhood  of  a local  church.  They  act  on  the  grand 
principle,  that  particular  congregations,  made  such  by  local 
necessities,  are  but  parts  of  one  great  ecclesiastical  common- 
wealth, embracing  all  of  every  name  and  nation  who  confess 
Christ  before  men.  This  principle  is  thus  early  incorporated 
into  their  whole  polity,  and  transmitted  to  successive  genera- 
tions. It  has  been  adopted,  from  that  day  to  the  present  time, 
by  all  branches  of  the  visible  Church,  save  the  Brown ists 
and  Independents,  and,  it  may  be,  some  few  fragmentary  sects 
of  but  little  note. 

Neither  the  teaching  of  Scripture,  therefore,  nor  the  practice 
of  the  early  churches,  militates,  in  the  slightest  degree,  against 
the  right  and  privilege  of  entering,  on  the  part  of  a particular 
church,  into  a permanent  confederacy  with  other  churches.  It 
is  an  inherent  right.  If  deemed  expedient,  in  a particular  case, 
country,  or  communion,  it  may  be  exercised.  The  Great 
Charter,  from  which  all  our  churches  derive  their  constitution, 
favors  it.  It  seems  to  grow  out  of  the  very  fundamental  prin- 
ciples of  the  Bible. 

The  question,  then,  of  an  organized  confederacy  of  churches 
becomes,  in  a measure,  one  of  expediency.  Is  it  best  for  the 
congregations  of  an  extended  communion  to  be  thus  banded 
together?  Are  there  important  ends  to  be  secured  without 
hazard  to  Christian  liberty,  by  such  an  arrangement?  If  gov- 
ernment is  needed  in  the  smaller  circle,  is  it  not  in  the  larger? 
If  in  the  family,  is  it  not  in  the  community  of  families  ? May 
every  household  set  itself  up  to  be  independent  of  all  others  ; 
and  every  hamlet,  village,  town,  or  city  make  the  same  demand  ? 
Is  it  thus  that  well-ordered  and  prosperous  states  are  consti- 
tuted and  conducted  ? Man  is  the  same,  whether  in  the  church 
or  the  state.  The  principles,  applicable  to  his  government  in 
the  one,  are  just  as  applicable  in  the  other.  Society,  ecclesias- 
tical as  well  as  political,  needs  to  be  bound  together  by  visible 
joints  and  bands.  Why  is  it  that,  not  only  in  monarchical 


18 


Europe,  but  even  in  republican  America,  in  democratic  New 
England,  the  system  of  confederation  pervades  the  whole  body 
politic?  Families  of  diverse  origin, whose  lot  is  cast  in  the 
same  general  vicinity,  prompted  by  a very  natural  regard  for 
their  common  welfare,  resolve  themselves  into  an  organized 
municipality — a town,  a borough,  a city.  The  several  towns 
of  the  same  locality,  in  order  to  guard  against  encroachment, 
and  to  provide  for  mutual  interests,  assume  the  form  of  a comi- 
tatus , or  county ; counties  become  states ; and  states  or  common- 
wealths, a confederated  republic,  a consolidated  nation,  a king- 
dom, an  empire. 

The  necessity  of  such  a system,  in  order  to  the  peace,  the 
comfort,  the  freedom,  and  the  progressive  development  of  the 
human  family,  in  all  matters  pertaining  to  the  body  politic,  will 
not  be  questioned  by  the  American  people.  We  have  no 
thought  of  any  other  system.  We  are  theoretically  and  prac- 
tically republicans — nothing  but  republicans.  The  principle  is 
embodied  in  the  Constitution  of  every  one  of  the  States ; and 
particularly  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  that 
“•  guarantees  to  every  State  in  this  Union  a republican  form  of 
government.”*  This  great  exponent  of  republicanism,  suscep- 
tible as  it  may  be  of  slight  amendments,  we  justly  regard  as 
the  charter  of  our  rights,  the  palladium,  not  of  bondage,  but 
of  freedom.  In  the  providence  of  God,  it  has  been  the  salva- 
tion, as  it  is  the  glory,  of  our  land.  At  a period  of  distrust, 
depression,  and  wide-spread  bankruptcy,  when  discord  and 
jealousy  pervaded  the  land,  when  agricultural,  manufacturing, 
and  commercial  enterprise  was  almost  extinguished,  and  ruin 
hung  like  a pall  over  the  country,  the  fathers  met  in  council, 
and  sought  a remedy  for  these  impending  evils.  A govern- 
ment must  be  devised  and  inaugurated,  more  stable  and  effi- 
cient than  the  system  of  independency  then  prevailing.  What 
shall  it  be  ? 

It  never  entered  into  the  thoughts  of  the  most  ultra-demo- 
cratic of  that  memorable  convention,  that  the  best  possible 
government  for  the  millions  of  the  American  people  would  be 
a return  to  the  simple  forms  of  the  town-meeting;  to  a system 
in  which  every  little  knot  of  neighbors,  banding  together  as  a 
municipality,  is  to  be  perfectly  “ independent  of  the  jurisdic- 


* Art.  IV.,  Sec.  4. 


19 


tion  of  .all  others “ where  the  influences  exerted  ” by  these 
communities  “ over  one  another  are  moral  merely,  and  not 
magisterial ; where  each  is  held  to  be  free  from  the  control  of 
all  the  others,  free  even  from  any  interference  on  their  part, 
except  as  it  assents  to  and  invites  it.;  where  all,  in  a word, 
while  allied  closely  by  confidence  and  friendship,  by  kindred 
impulses  and  similar  aims,  are  uncombined  in  any  structure  of 
laws,  and,  therefore,  though  free  to  advise,  are  not  at  liberty 
to  dictate,”*  the  only  visible  exemplification  of  fellowship  and 
union  being  an  “occasional  call  of  each  upon  the  others  for 
counsel  and  advice.”f  This  system,  the  boast  of  Independency, 
from  one  of  whose  most  zealous  advocates  this  description  is 
taken,  had  in  part  prevailed  too  long  in  the  State,  and  was 
itself  one  of  the  evils  under  which  the  country  groaned.  As  a 
political  theory,  it  could  not  have  been  put  into  practice  even 
where  embraced  ecclesiastically. 

“In  order  to  form  a more  perfect  union,  establish  justice, 
insure  domestic  tranquillity,  provide  for  the  common  defense, 
promote  the  general  welfare,  and  secure  the  blessings  of  liber- 
ty to  themselves  and  their  posterity,  the  people  of  the  United 
States  ordained  and  established  a political  Constitution,  which 
to  this  day  has  withstood  every  assault,  and  been  the  greatest 
bulwark  of  political  freedom.  It  has  made  of  numerous  sove- 
reign States  one  united  people,  binding  together  their  discord- 
ant interests,  prompting  them  to  consult  and  labor  for  the  com- 
mon weal,  and  giving  them  character  and  influence  in  the 
household  of  nations.  It  has  made  us,  by  the  blessing  of  God, 
a prosperous,  powerful,  and  happy  people.  It  has  secured  to 
the  individual,  and  to  the  humblest  of  the  States,  the  utmost 
liberty  consistent  with  safety  and  strength,  guarding  them  from 
all  encroachment.  Well  may  we  prize  it,  cherish  it,  cling  to  it, 
and  plead  with  the  God  of  nations  that  it  may  be  perpetual, 
lie  that  would  rend  it  in  twain  is  a foe  to  his  country,  an  ene- 
my to  man.  W e can  not  but  frown  on  every  attempt  of  every 
demagogue,  of  every  political  faction,  of  every  sectional  party, 
to  disparage  its  principles,  to  pervert  its  obvious  intent,  or  to 
trample  it  in  the  dust.  Perish  the  hand  that  is  lifted  against 

* “Congregationalism,”  p.  31. 

f “Congregationalism,”  p.  28. 

t Preamble  to  the  “ Constitution  of  the  U.  S.  of  A.” 


20 


if ! Perish  the  politicians  and  the  political  party,  -who,  in  de- 
fiance of  its  manifest  import  and  avowed  purpose,  its  princi- 
ples and  its  spoirit,  use  it  as  the  instrument  of  a crushing  oppres- 
sion, a tool  of  tyranny,  and  a shield  of  despotic  ambition  ; or 
madly  conspire,  in  the  failure  of  their  visionary  schemes,  to 
rend  asunder,  what  God  has  so  manifestly  joined  together,  the 
States  of  the  American  Union  ! 

The  Church,  more  than  the  State,  is,  and  should  be,  one. 
By  virtue  of  its  divine  constitution,  it  is  compacted  and  knit 
together  in  the  bonds  of  a holy  love.  Its  various  portions  have 
common  sympathies,  relations,  and  interests.  Reason,  Scrip- 
ture, and  experience  teach,  that,  where  the  churches  of  a terri- 
tory, state,  province,  or  nation,  have  the  same  or  similar  views 
of  doctrine,  -worship,  government,  and  discipline,  it  is  both  right 
and  wise  to  institute  or  adopt  some  organized  mode  of  exhibit- 
ing and  confirming  their  union ; thereby  also  to  secure  the 
rights,  privileges,  and  interests  which  pertain  to  them  as  Christ 
ians  and  churches,  and  which  are  ever  liable  to  be  brought 
into  jeopardy. 

On  these  principles  the  framers  of  our  ecclesiastical  consti- 
tution acted.  They  aimed  to  give  embodiment  as  well  as  ex- 
pression to  the  fellowship  of  the  churches ; to  deepen  the  inte- 
rest of  each  in  the  other ; to  furnish  the  most  ample  guarantees 
of  mutual  regard ; to  provide  for  the  denomination  a suitable 
ministry ; to  preserve  them  from  the  encroachments  of  ignor- 
ance, superstition,  inordinate  ambition,  and  immorality  in  the 
pulpit ; to  secure  the  most  abundant  redress  from  the  injustice 
of  intolerance  and  bigotry ; to  guard  in  the  most  effectual  man- 
ner the  right  of  private  judgment,  and  to  maintain  the  unfet- 
tered exercise  of  Christian  liberty.  They  sought  to  strengthen 
each  other’s  hearts  and  hands  in  the  good  work  of  advancing 
the  kingdom  of  holiness  in  their  own  souls,  and  in  the  souls  of 
perishing  men  throughout  the  land  and  throughout  the 
world. 

These  men  were  staunch  republicans  and  true  patriots — 
none  more  so — true  friends  of  Washington  and  the  American 
Congress.  They  had  laid  their  all  on  the  altar  of  liberty — 
periled  every  thing  in  their  unwavering  opposition  to  tyranny 
and  oppression.  None  more  heartily  and  steadily  maintained 
the  rights  of  the  people  as  proclaimed,  not  in  “glittering  and 


*21 


sounding  generalities,”*  but  in  4i  the  words  of  truth  and  sober- 
ness” embodied  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  John 
Witherspoon,  the  scholar,  the  senator,  and  the  divine,  the 
friend  of  freedom  and  the  uncompromising  foe  of  oppression, 
was  the  fitting  representative  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  when 
he  appended  his  name  to  that  national  protest.  They  accepted 
his  act  as  their  own,  and  stood  by  him  to  the  end.  The  men 
who  assembled  in  the  Synod  of  New-York  and  Philadelphia  in 
17S6  and  17S7,  by  whom  our  ecclesiastical  platform  was 
constructed,  had  but  just  come  from  the  scenes  of  that  memo- 
rable struggle  which  gave  freedom  to  the  nation.  At  the  very 
time,  when  the  fathers  of  the  Pepublic  were  laying  the  founda- 
tions and  erecting  the  superstructure  of  our  political  Const! tu- 
tion,  the  fathers  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  were  accomplish- 
ing a similar  work  for  their  religious  commonwealth. 

The  period  was  auspicious.  Questions  pertaining  to  the  sci- 
ence of  human  government  had  excited  the  utmost  attention, 
had  been  discussed  most  freely,  and  had  been  deeply  pondered, 
from  the  earlier  stages  of  the  great  contest  for  freedom.  The 
ablest  writers  of  the  age  were  tasking  their  energies,  and  con- 
tributing to  the  formation  of  a healthful  public  sentiment. 
Xever  before,  at  least  on  this  side  of  the  great  sea,  had  the 
human  mind  been  so  thoroughly  roused  in  relation  to  human 
rights.  Jealous  of  their  blood-bought  liberties,  and  sensitive  to 
the  last  degree  in  the  matter  of  ecclesiastical  domination,  hav- 
ing but  just  escaped  from  the  impending  visitation  of  a lordly 
hierarchy  from  a foreign  shore,  they  were  the  last  men  in  tin- 
world  to  impose  the  yoke  of  an  “ iron  rule  ” upon  the  necks  of 
their  brethren.  They  were  laymen  as  well  as  clergymen. 
Genuine  haters  of  popery  and  prelacy,  they  could  not  but  favor, 
and  to  their  utmost  promote  the  parity  of  believers,  of  church- 
es, and  of  the  ministry. 

God  alone,”  they  said,  £lis  the  Lord  of  the  conscience,  and 
hath  left  it  free  from  the  doctrines  and  commandments  of  men. 
which  are  in  any  thing  contrary  to  his  word,  or  beside  it,  in 
matters  of  faith  or  worship.”  They  maintained,  therefore, 
that  “ the  rights  of  private  judgment,  in  all  matters  that  respect 
religion,”  are  “ universal  and  unalienable ;”  and  u that  in  per- 
fect consistency  with  ” this  “ principle  of  common  right,  every 


* Hon.  Rufus  Choate. 


22 


Christian  church,  or  union  or  association  of  particular  church- 
es, is  entitled  to  declare  the  terms  of  admission  into  its  com- 
munion, and  the  qualifications  of  its  ministers  and  members, 
as  well  as  the  whole  system  of  its  internal  government  which 
Christ  hath  appointed.”*  "What  could  be  asked  for  more,  even 
by  Independency  itself? 

The  result  of  their  deliberations  is  embodied  in  a written 
Constitution,  or  form  of  government,  discipline  and  worship, 
conformed  in  a remarkable  degree,  as  might  have  been  expect- 
ed, to  the  political  system  of  our  country,  as  well  as  to  the 
Scriptures  of  divine  truth ; a Constitution  in  which,  while  the 
rights  of  the  individual,  and  of  each  particular  church,  are 
carefully  secured,  the  unity  and  the  community  of  the  whole 
brotherhood  of  believers,  and  especially  of  the  denomination, 
are  fully  recognized  and  practically  illustrated  ; a Constitution 
which,  for  all  the  important  ends  of  church  government  and 
discipline,  may  well  challenge  a comparison  with  any  and  every 
other ; of  which  we  have  no  need  to  be  ashamed. 

Some  recognition  of  the  fellowship  of  the  churches,  and 
some  responsibility  on  the  part  of  particular  churches,  one  to 
another,  are  deemed  necessary  even  among  our  Independent 
and  Congregational  brethren.  If  we  have  our  Presbyteries, 
they  have  their  Associations  and  Consociations,  their  Councils 
and  Conferences.  If  we  have  our  Synods,  they  have  their 
General  Conferences,  Conventions  and  Associations.  If  we 
have  our  General  Assembly,  they  have  their  Cambridge,  Say- 
brook,  and  Albany  Synods,  or  Congregational  Unions.  f Their 
necessities,  as  well  as  ours,  constrain  them  to  the  adoption  of 
these  principles. 

As  individual  believers  need  the  watch  and  care  of  a con- 
federated Church,  united  by  “ solemn  league  and  covenant  ” 
in  one  body,  so,  also,  individual  churches  arc  to  regard  them- 
selves as  members  of  the  same  body,  and,  by  some  visible  or- 
ganization, provide  for  their  mutual  inspection.  As  the  lone 
Christian  is  prone  to  wander  and  fall,  so  is  the  lone  church. 
The  experience  of  the  present,  and  of  every  past  age,  teaches 
us,  in  the  words  of  our  Constitution,  that  “the  purest  churches 
under  heaven  are  subject  both  to  mixture  and  error,”  and  may 


* Form  of  Gov.,  i.,  1,  2. 


23 


be  “ so  degenerated  as  to  become  no  churches  of  Christ,  but 
synagogues  of  Satan.”*  If  the  fall  of  one  professing  Christian 
is  an  evil  to  be  carefully  avoided  and  prevented,  much  more 
the  fall  of  a whole  church.  Why  guard,  in  our  ecclesiastical 
systems,  so  carefully  against  the  one,  and  not  the  other  ? Why 
provide  an  organization  in  the  one  instance,  and  none  in  the 
other  ? 

The  necessity  of  making  application  for  the  counsel  and  co- 
operation of  other  churches  is  not  denied,  by  even  the  most 
strenuous  advocates  of  Independency.  They  differ  from  us, 
however,  as  to  the  form  or  mode  by  which  this  mutual  assist- 
ance is  to  be  secured.  Shall  it  bo  perfectly  systematized,  or 
left  to  mere  exigencies  ? Shall  it  be  regulated  by  fixed  princi- 
ples and  determinate  rules,  as  in  a written  constitution,  or  shall 
usage  and  tradition  alone  be  regarded  ? Shall  the  combination 
of  sister  churches  be  such  as  to  require  periodical  convocations, 
or  shall  these  be  only  occasional  ? Shall  the  confederacy  be  of 
the  same  churches  and  their  pastors,  or  shall  the  membership 
in  every  particular  instance  be  determined  by  the  parties  seek- 
ing counsel?  Shall  the  power  and  authority  of  these  ecclesi- 
astical bodies  be  exercised  in  accordance  with  constitutional 
law,  and  with  a definite  responsibility,  or  by  an  evanescent 
convention,  whose  existence  begins  and  ends  with  the  occasion 
that  calls  them  together,  and  whose  responsibility  terminates 
with  their  existence  as  a temporary  organization  ? It  is  not  a 
question  as  to  the  nature  of  this  power.  In  both  connections 
it  is  the  same.  “ All  church  power,”  we  maintain,  “ whether 
exercised  by  the  body  in  general,  or  in  the  way  of  representa- 
tion by  delegated  authority,  is  only  ministerial  and  declarative ; 
that  is  to  say,”  “ the  Holy  Scriptures  are  the  only  rule  of  faith 
and  manners;”  “no  church  judicatory  ought  to  pretend  to 
make  laws  to  bind  the  conscience,  in  virtue  of  their  own  au- 
thority; and”  “all  their  decisions  should  be  founded  on  the 
W ord  of  God.”  So  say  our  standards.  “ Their  power  is  wholly 
moral  or  spiritual,  and  that  only  ministerial  and  declarative.”+ 

In  determining  these  points  of  difference,  it  is  well  to  con- 
sult those  who  have  been  trained  and  have  passed  their  lives  in 
Xew-England,  under  the  operation  of  a system  commended  so 


* Conf.  of  Faith,  sst.,  5. 
f Form  of  Gov.,  L,  7 ; viii.,  2. 


24 


zealously  at  tlie  present  time  as  “a  more  excellent  way"  than 
our  own. 

“Synods  orderly  assembled,”  say  the  constructors  of  the 
Cambridge  platform,  in  1G4S,  “ and  rightly  proceeding  accord- 
ing to  the  pattern,  Acts  15,  we  acknowledge  as  the  ordinance 
of  Christ ; and  though  not  absolutely  necessary  to  the  being, 
yet  many  times,  through  the  iniquity  of  men,  and  perverseness 
of  times,  necessary  to  the  well-being  of  churches,  for  the  estab- 
lishment of  truth  and  peace  therein.”* * * § 

“ The  Consociation  of  churches,”  says  the  famous  Richard 
Mather  of  Dorchester,  Mass.,  in  1039,  “ into  classes  and  synods, 
we  hold  to  be  lawful,  and  in  some  cases  necessary ; as,  namely, 
in  things  that  are  not  peculiar  to  one  church,  but  common  to 
them  all.  And  likewise  when  a church  is  not  able  to  end  any 
matter  which  concerns  only  themselves,  then  they  are  to  seek 
for  counsel  and  advice  from  neighbor  churches.”f 

“ All  the  churches,”  observes  John  Cotton  of  Boston,  “ the 
patriarch  of  Xew-England,”  in  1044,  “have  the  liberty  of  send- 
ing their  messengers,  to  debate  and  determine,  in  a synod, 
such  matters  as  do  concern  them  all.”  Such  synods  “have 
power,  by  the  grace  of  Christ,  not  only  to  give  light  and  coun- 
sel in  matter  of  truth  and  practice,  but  also  to  command  and 
enjoin  the  things  to  be  believed  and  done ;”  as  also  “ to  decree 
and  publish  such  ordinances  as  may  conduce  according  to  God 
unto”  “reformation.”^;  It  is  said  of  Mr.  Cotton,  that  he 
“ would  sometimes  bewail  the  deficiency  of  the  churches  in 
Xew-England  in  this  particular;”  and  that,  not  long  before  his 
decease,  he  drew  up  certain  “ propositions  concerning  the  con- 
sociation and  communion  of  churches,”  which  were  published 
in  1675.§ 

“We  must  agree,”  said  Thomas  Ilooker  of  Hartford,  the 
patriarch  of  Connecticut,  a short  time  before  his  decease,  in 
1047,  “ upon  constant  meetings  of  ministers,  and  settle  the  con- 
sociation of  churches,  or  else  we  are  utterly  undone.” 

The  question,  “Whether,  according  to  the  word  of  God, 

* Cliap.  xvi.,  1. 

f ‘‘Congregational  Order,”  p.  25. 

X 11  Keys  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven, ” pp.  45,  57,  58. 

§ “ The  l’anoplist,”  x.,  327. 

D “ Magnalia  Christi  Americana,”  ii.,  232. 


25 

there  ought  to  be  a Consociation  of  churches,  and  what  should 
be  the  manner  of  it  ?”  was  submitted,  by  the  General  Court  oi 
Massachusetts,  to  a Synod  convened  at  Boston,  in  1662 ; and 
“with  a marvellous  unanimity,  not  one  elder,  nor  so  much  as 
two  brethren  in  all  that  reverend  assembly,  dissenting,’  they 
answered  the  first  part  of  the  inquiry  in  the  affirmative.  “The 
churches  of  Christ,”  they  said,  “in  this  country,  having  so  good 
an  opportunity  for  it,  it  is  meet  to  be  commended  to  them  as 
their  duty  thus  to  consociate.”f 

Trumbull,  the  historian  of  Connecticut,  informs  us,  that,  at 
the  commencement  of  the  last  century,  “ the  state  of  the 
churches  was  lamentable  with  respect  to  their  general  order, 
government,  and  discipline;”  “that,  for  the  want  ot  a more 
general  and  energetic  government,  many  churches  ran  into 
confusion ; that  councils  were  not  sufficient  to  relieve  the  ag- 
grieved, and  restore  peace.  As  there  was  no  general  rule  for 
the  calling  of  councils,  council  was  called  against  council,  and 
opposite  results  were  given  upon  the  same  cases,  to  the  reproach 
of  councils,  and  the  wounding  of  religion.  Aggrieved  churches 
and  brethren  were  discouraged,  as  in  this  way  their  case  seemed 
to  be  without  remedy.  There  was  no  such  thing,  in  this  way, 
as  bringing  their  difficulties  to  a final  issue.”  “ A great  ma- 
jority of  the  Legislature  and  clergy  in  Connecticut,  were  for 
the  association  of  ministers,  and  the  consociation  of  churches.” 
A synod  was  convened  at  Saybrook,  in  1T0S,  which  “provided 
for  one  or  more  consociations  in  each  county,  which  should  be 
standing,  known,  and  responsible  tribunals,  with  appellate  and 
final  jurisdiction. The  design  of  the  framers  of  the  Saybrook 
platform  was,  “to  prevent  picked  councils,  ex  parte  councils, 
and  councils  upon  councils  which  should  give  contradictory 
results,  and  plunge  the  churches  into  deeper  troublcs.”§  The 
plan  of  confederation  went  into  very  general  use ; and,  after  it 
“had  time  to  operate,  the  churches  became  more  regular  and 
harmonious  in  their  discipline,  enjoyed  more  general  peace, 
and  their  numbers  constantly  increased. ”|| 

* “The  Panoplist,”  x.,  327. 

f “ Magnalia.”  ii.,  257. 

I “ Complete  History  of  Connecticut,”  i.,  507. 

§ “Cong.  Order,”  pp.  34,  35, 

| Trumbull,  ii.,  17. 


26 


At  the  expiration  of  more  than  a century,  during  which  pe- 
riod the  churches  of  Massachusetts  had  passed  through  a sea  ot 
troubles,  and  had  been  repeatedly  distracted  and  rent  asunder 
by  internal  commotions,  attention  was  again  turned  to  the  con- 
sociation of  the  churches.  In  an  elaborate  report,  made  in 
1815,  to  the  General  Association,  by  such  men  as  the  Rev. 
Drs.  Morse,  Worcester,  Woods,  Austin,  Lyman,  and  Cooley 
reference  is  made  to  the  counsel  of  their  early  divines,  and  it 
is  affirmed  that  “ the  consequences  of  disregarding  this  sound 
advice  have  been  witnessed  in  the  state  of  the  churches  in  Mas- 
sachusetts for  a century  past,  and  are  appai'ent  in  their  present 
state.”  “ So  distracted,”  they  say,  “ is  the  state  of  our  ecclesi- 
astical affairs,  and  so  vague,  and  loose,  and  weak  the  principle 
of  union,  that  churches  in  our  fellowship  may  go  to  the  great- 
est length  of  apostacy,  without  any  inspection,  and  without 
losing  that  indefinite  fellowship  with  us,  which  they  before 
enjoyed.”  “There  is  no  explicit  acknowledgment  of  mutual 
responsibility,  and  no  definite  intelligible  statement  of  recipro- 
cal rights  and  duties,  or  of  the  method  of  intercourse.”  “ We 
are  under  a kind  of  necessity  of  allowing  our  disorderly  mem- 
bers to  call  in  churches  the  most  defective  in  Christian  char- 
acter, to  censure  our  principles,  to  overturn  our  internal  dis- 
cipline, to  sanction  disorder  and  heresy,  and  to  attack  the  repu- 
tation of  faithful  ministers.”  “ We  have  no  effectual  means  of 
keeping  corrupt  or  incompetent  men  from  entering  into  the 
ministry  and  obtaining  ordination.  A corrupt  church,  with  a 
heretical  minister,  has  opportunity  to  exert  a corrupting  influ- 
ence upon  the  whole  body  of  Congregational  churches.  The 
great  evil  here  complained  of  is  at  present  protected  and  suf- 
fered to  spread,  without  any  effort  for  its  cure.”  “We  have 
no  regular,  acknowledged,  and  uniform  method  of  trying  a 
minister  for  any  violation  of  the  laws  of  Christ.” 

The  only  remedy  provided  by  the  system,  for  the  removal  ot 
these  evils,  is  the  calling  of  occasional  councils,  by  mutual 
choice,  or  by  an  aggrieved  party.  Of  mutual  councils,  Dr. 
Morse  and  his  associates  say : “ Such  occasional,  transient 
bodies,  however  useful  they  may  sometimes  be  in  composing 
particular  disturbances,  can  afford  no  regular  and  permanent 
support  to  the  friends  of  religious  order,  or  do  any  tiling  effect- 
ually to  restrain  offenders.  Mutual  councils,  in  present  cir- 


27 


curastances,  may  bo  evaded.  Offenders  may  refuse  to  join  in 
the  choice  of  them,  or  to  submit  to  their  decisions.”  “Nor  is 
it  determined  among  our  churches,”  they  add,  “ in  what  cases 
councils  arc  to  be  called  ; nor  what  is  the  extent  of  their  juris- 
diction, or  the  authority  of  their  results.  Mutual  councils,  on 
the  present  plan,  may  be  multiplied  without  limits.  Difficul- 
ties may  be  so  managed,  that  there  shall  be  no  end  of  strife." 
“ Mutual  councils,  at  present,  are  constituted  in  a manner  ex- 
tremely unfavorable  to  impartiality,  justice,  and  unanimity; 
so  that  there  is  but  little  prospect  of  a decision  which  will  give 
satisfaction  to  the  parties.  Councils  are  chosen  in  a time  of 
contention,  when  the  minds  of  all  concerned  are  liable  to  irri- 
tation, if  not  to  bitterness.  And,  what  is  more,  they  are  chosen 
by  the  contending  parties ; and  the  offender,  however  excep- 
tionable his  character,  and  however  flagrant  his  crimes,  has  an 
equal  influence  in  constituting  the  tribunal  with  the  other  party. 
Doubtless  he  will  make  it  his  object  to  select  men  who  will  be 
his  particular  friends  and  advocates — not  those  who  will  be 
judicious  and  impartial.”  “As  circumstances  are,  it  is  by  no 
means  strange,  that  a trial  before  a mutual  council  is  frequently 
nothing  but  a scene  of  animosity  and  strife,  in  which  the  par- 
ties, aided  by  two  divisions  of  the  council,  come  forward  to  con- 
tend for  victory.  The  evil  here  complained  of,  is  like  that 
which  would  be  felt  by  civil  society,  if  courts  of  justice,  instead 
of  being  permanent  bodies,  organized  in  a manner  wisely  cal- 
culated to  exclude  all  injustice  and  respect  of  persons,  should 
depend  for  their  existence  and  continuance,  on  the  will  of  dis- 
agreeing parties,  and  so  should,  in  fact,  be  the  offspring  of  self- 
interest,  dishonesty,  and  strife.” 

“ An  ex  parte  council,”  they  say,  “ resorted  to  as  a substitute 
for  a mutual  council,  is  still  more  exceptionable.  It  will,  from 
the  very  nature  of  the  case,  be  regarded  with  suspicion,  and 
can  never  have  the  power  of  terminating  a contention.  A 
second  ex  parte  council  may  be  called  to  contravene  the  deci- 
sion of  the  first,  and  so  on  without  end.”* 

Not  less  decided  and  definite  are  the  objections  urged  by 
President  Dwight  against  this  whole  system.  He  speaks  of  “ a 
select  council”  as  “a  judicatory  most  unhappily  constituted.” 
“ It  seems  absolutely  necessary,”  he  says,  “ that  every  ecclesi- 


* “'The  Panoplist,”  xi.,  3G1-368. 


28 


astical  body  should  have  its  tribunal  of  appeals.”  This  tribu- 
nal, he  thinks,  should  be  “a  standing  body,”  “always  existing, 
of  acknowledged  authority,”  “ a court  of  record,  having  a regu- 
lar system  of  precedents.”  And  beyond  this,  he  judges,  there 
should  be  “ a still  superior  tribunal,  to  receive  appeals,  in  cases 
where  they  are  obviously  necessary.”*  He  vastly  preferred 
the  Presbyterian  to  the  Congregational  way. 

If,  at  the  expiration  of  nearly  two  hundred  years,  during 
which  the  He w-En gland  system  had  been  on  trial,  its  ablest 
divines,  the  men  of  ripest  experience,  familiar  from  their  child- 
hood with  its  workings  and  with  its  history,  most  trusted  and 
trustworthy,  are  constrained  thus  to  deplore  its  obvious  defects 
and  manifest  evils,  we  wonder  not  that  President  Edwards,  in 
1750,  should  have  said,  “ I have  long  been  perfectly  out  of  con- 
ceit of  our  unsettled,  independent,  confused  way  of  church 
government  in  this  land ; and  the  Presbyterian  way  has  ever 
appeared  to  me  most  agreeable  to  the  Word  of  God,  and  the 
reason  and  nature  of  things.”f 

The  testimony  of  these  venerated  men  applies  just  as  forci- 
bly now  as  then,  to  the  system  of  which  they  complained.  The 
evils  specified  are  incident  to  the  system.  Let  error  creep  into 
the  churches,  as  in  the  days  of  Stoddard  and  Edwards,  or  as  in 
the  days  of  Morse  and  Channing,  and  what  is  to  hinder  the 
spread  of  defection  from  the  faith  ? If  a gifted  pastor  makes 
an  excursion  into  the  regions  of  speculation,  and  returns  with 
perverted  views  of  “God  in  Christ,”  of  the  great  sacrifice  for 
sin,  and  of  regeneration,  who  but  his  own  church  arQ  to  call 
him  to  account  ? And,  if  they  sustain  him,  who  is  to  expostu- 
late with  them,  and  save  the  community  from  the  inroads  of 
false  doctrine,  especially  if  they  proclaim  their  independence 
of  all  superior  jurisdiction?  Under  such  a system,  who  can 
tell  whether  a church,  or  its  pastor,  is  sound  in  the  faith  or  not, 
save  by  direct  investigation  ? Every  body  knows  what  a Pres- 
byterian is.  A man,  or  a church,  may  be  Congregationalism 
and  yet  be  Arminian,  Socinian,  or  Universalist.  The  errorist 
invariably  finds  our  system  too  unyielding  and  uncomfortable. 
He  greatly  prefers  its  opposite.  When  churches  or  ministers 
become  restive  under  the  Avholesomo  restraints  of  our  ecclesi- 
astical polity,  they  very  readily  adopt  a system  under  which 


* “Theology,”  Sor.  1G2. 


f Life,  by  Dwight,  p.  412. 


29 


the)’  can  demand  to  be  let  alone,  and  can  insist  upon  the  right 
of  believing  and  teaching  as  they  please. 

Ours,  we  believe,  is  the  more  orderly,  the  “ more  excellent 
way.”  While  the  particular  church  retains,  and  is  sustained  in, 
the  right  of  conducting  its  internal  affairs  in  its  own  way,  sub- 
ject only  to  the  fundamental  law  of  the  confederacy,  as  in  all 
well-ordered  states,  the  utmost  care  is  taken  that  the  common 
interests  of  truth  and  goodness  shall  suffer  no  damage.  If  the 
poorest  of  the  flock  is  aggrieved,  provision  the  most  ample  and 
inexpensive  is  made  for  redress.  From  the  Session  he  may 
appeal  to  the  Presbytery,  a body  not  created  at  the  will  of  the 
parties  for  the  mere  occasion,  but,  like  our  courts  of  justice, 
permanent  and  responsible.  Thence,  too,  he  may  go  to  the 
Synod  and  the  Assembly,  as  in  civil  cases  to  the  Superior  and 
the  Supreme  Court.  The  rich  may  not  oppress  the  poor,  nor 
an  overbearing  party  in  the  church  trample  on  the  weak.  The 
pastor  may  not,  on  the  one  hand,  play  the  despot  and  set  at 
naught  all  authority ; nor,  on  the  other  hand,  be  crushed  by  a 
cruel  and  cunning  despotism  on  the  part  of  a self-constituted 
clique  of  leaders  in  the  church.  An  effectual  shield  is  fur- 
nished in  either  case.  Every  wrong  may  be  redressed,  every 
fatal  error  be  arrested,  every  withered  branch  removed,  with- 
out encroachment  on  inherent  rights,  or  prejudice  to  the  liber- 
ties of  the  people  and  their  pastors. 

The  purity  of  the  pulpit  can  not  be  too  effectually  secured. 
Ecclesiastical  history  is,  on  almost  every  page,  laden  with  the 
evils  consequent  upon  the  ministry  of  the  ignorant,  the  weak, 
the  covetous,  the  crafty,  and  the  unprincipled.  Our  system 
aims  to  keep  the  pulpit  pure.  Free  to  choose,  without  restraint, 
their  own  religious  teachers,  our  churches  are  protected  from 
imbecility  and  imposition,  from  heretical  pravity  and  impiety, 
on  the  part  of  those  who  desire  the  bishop  s office,  by  the  re- 
ference of  the  call  to  a standing  council,  whose  position  and 
relations  give  them  abundant  facilities  for  testing  the  gifts,  de- 
termining the  faith,  and  trying  the  spirits,  of  candidates  for  the 
honors  and  responsibilities  of  the  pastoral  work.  The  doors 
of  the  sanctuary  are  to  be  shut  against  the  unworthy,  and  in- 
truders are  to  be  thrust  out.  This  great  end  of  our  ecclesias- 
tical polity  has  thus  far  been  well  attained.  When  the  most 
baleful  errors  have  pervaded  other  communions,  and  when 


30 


Independency  lias  proved  in  this  respect  a failure,  our  own 
churches,  by  the  will  of  God,  have  been  kept  pure. 

This  system  of  confederated  councils,  therefore,  we  main- 
tain, is  worthy  of  all  confidence.  It  is  sanctioned  by  the  al- 
most unanimous  suffrages  of  the  Christian  world,  being  tacitly 
adopted  even  where  in  theory  it  is  rejected.  It  is  based,  more- 
over, upon  those  principles  of  government  which  underlie  every 
well-ordered  political  state.  It  accords  admirably  with  the 
theory  and  spirit  of  our  own  municipal  institutions,  and  secures 
all  the  ends  of  government,  with  as  few  incidental  evils  as  can 
well  be  expected,  in  a -world  of  so  much  selfishness,  prejudice, 
and  corruption. 

Nor  is  it  the  least  of  its  excellencies,  that  it  requires  us  to 
“ go  by  a book  that  the  metes  and  bounds  of  our  con- 
stitutional government  are  known,  recorded  on  the  printed 
page,  and  made  a matter  of  covenant ; that  nothing  is  left  to 
conjecture  or  tradition,  but  all  the  essentials  of  faith,  order,  and 
discipline  made  certain.  Scripture  is  infinitely  to  be  preferred 
to  tradition ; written  law,  to  conventional  usage.  The  definite 
is  vastly  better  than  the  indefinite — far  less  liable  to  perversion 
and  abuse ; more  available  for  all  the  legitimate  ends  of  gov- 
ernment ; more  conducive  to  union,  concord,  strength ; and 
more  reliable  for  the  oppressed.  We  have  a book,  and  we 
“ g°  by  a book not  the  compilation  of  some  self-appointed 
scribe,  or  annalist,  but  the  work  of  the  whole  Church,  well 
digested,  and  heartily  adopted.  It  is  one  of  the  felicities  of 
our  system,  that,  when  one  of  our  standing  councils  convenes, 
the  question  is  not  asked,  “ What  is  the  usage,  what  the  cus- 
tom ?”  as  in  those  evanescent  Conventions  where  nothing  is 
fixed,  nothing  certain.  We  are  not  left  to  the  treacherous  and 
varying  memories,  impulses,  whims,  fancies,  or  prejudices,  of 
self-constituted  leaders,  who  may  choose  to  put  their  own  inter- 
pretation on  traditionary  forms. 

Another  distinctive  principle  of  our  ecclesiastical  polity,  and 
the  last  to  be  enumerated,  is 

IV.  A representative  administration  of  government. 

In  all  constitutional  governments,  where  the  power  emanates 

* Address  before  the  Am.  Cong.  Union,  by  Win.  A.  Stearns,  D.D.,  p.  56. 


SI 


from  the  people,  the  system  of  delegation  prevails.  It  grows 
out  of  the  nature  of  the  case.  Once  only,  or  but  seldom,  in 
the  year,  can  the  town  assemble  in  mass  for  the  supervision  of 
their  common  interests.  If  a street  is  to  be  graded,  a road 
repaired,  a ditch  dug,  a post  set,  a tree  planted,  a walk  laid,  a 
pond  drained,  a fence  built,  the  town-house  swept,  a broken 
sash  repaired,  a leak  mended,  a door  re-hung,  or  a pulley  ad- 
justed, must  the  whole  town  be  called  together  ? In  the  admin- 
istration of  justice,  in  matters  of  dispute  between  neighbors, 
in  the  adjudication  of  the  claims  of  the  grocer,  the  baker,  the 
tailor,  the  hatter,  the  seamstress,  and  the  milliner,  must  the 
whole  town  be  summoned  to  hear,  consider,  and  determine  l 
Are  the  nice  and  intricate  questions  of  civil  and  criminal  law, 
and  every  judicial  process  against  a debtor,  a pilferer,  a forger, 
a burglar,  a midnight  brawler,  a boxer,  a murderer,  to  be  de- 
termined in  “ town  meeting”  ? The  most  ultra  democrat  of  the 
land  never  ventured  his  reputation  on  such  a theory.  All 
such  matters  are  better  intrusted  to  the  hands  of  a chosen  few — 
the  selectmen,  the  aldermen,  the  standing  committee,  the 
supervisors.  The  town  rnnst  needs  act,  in  a thousand  things, 
by  proxy,  by  representation,  by  officials.  It  is  the  only  ration- 
al mode.  The  principle  pervades  our  whole  body  politic. 

Our  system  of  church  government  herein  conforms  to  the 
most  approved  precedents,  the  dictates  of  reason,  and  the 
Scripture  model.  We  have  our  selectmen,  aldermen,  or  eld- 
el's,  in  every  church,  chosen  by  the  people  from  their  own 
number,  to  administer  the  discipline,  watch  at  the  door,  and 
supervise  the  affairs  of  God's  house.  Whatever  may  be 
thought  of,  what  some  among  us  maintain,  the  divine  war- 
rant of  the  eldership,  none  can  deny,  not  even  the  most  strenu- 
ous advocates  of  the  people's  power,  or  so  much  as  question, 
the  right  of  any  church  to  adopt,  if  it  suits  them  best,  the  re- 
presentative form  in  the  government  of  their  fraternity.  It  is 
clearly  at  their  option,  to  commit  so  much  of  the  supervision  of 
their  community  as  may  be  deemed  best,  into  the  hands  of  a 
session  or  standing  committee.  Nothing  in  God’s  Word  for- 
bids it.  Congregationalism  claims  it  as  an  inherent  right,  to 
determine  in  what  form  church  government  is  to  be  adminis- 
tered. It  exercises  the  right  in  numerous  instances.  Its 


churches  transact  their  business,  to  a great  extent,  by  commit- 
tees. The  standing  committee  is  in  effect  a session. 

The  principle  prevails  more  or  less  in  every  church.  “ It 
must  often  happen,”  says  Dr.  Chalmers,  “ that  even  under  the 
most  democratic  economy  of  a congregation,  the  minister  vir- 
tually obtains  his  office  by  the  appointment  of  the  few,  and 
only  with  the  accpiiescence  of  the  many.  In  every  assemblage 
of  human  beings,  this  is  the  method  by  which  all  their  proceed- 
ings are  really  carried  forward.  The  ascendency  of  worth,  or 
talent,  or  station,  or  some  other  natural  influence,  is  ever  sure 
to  vest  the  power  of  originating  with  the  few,  aud  to  leave 
nothing  with  the  many,  but  the  power  of  a veto  ; nay,  even  in 
many  instances,  to  disarm  them  of  that  power.”* 

The  pastor  of  a Congregational  church  in  the  city  of  Xew- 
Vork,+  was  asked,  not  long  since,  “Have  you  not  ruling  elders 
in  your  church?”  and  the  instant  reply  was,  “Host  certainly.” 
“ And  is  it  not  so  in  all  your  churches?”  “Certainly.”  Such 
being  the  inevitable  tendency  of  all  democracies,  we  avail  our- 
selves of  the  principle.  Seeing  that,  whether  officially  or  un- 
officially, the  power  will  be  exercised,  we  prefer  to  make  it  a 
responsible  power — to  hold  the  few  accountable  to  the  many, 
by  official  trust,  and  so  to  guard  the  rights  of  all  most  effectu- 
ally. I\othing  is  more  to  be  deprecated  in  any  government, 
civil  or  ecclesiastical,  than  irresponsible  power,  whether  exer- 
cised by  lord  bishops  or  lord  brethren. 

This  delegation  of  authority  implies  no  sacrifice  of  equality 
or  liberty.  The  senator  is  but  a servant.  The  Presbyterian 
elder,  as  truly  as  the  Congregational  deacon,  is  but  one  of  the 
people,  chosen  to  minister  in  things  pertaining  to  God,  for  his 
brethren.  This  cherished  principle  of  democracy  pervades  our 
whole  ecclesiastical  polity.  The  pastor  is  but  one  of  the  peo- 
ple. In  all  our  assemblies — sessional,  presbyterial,  synodi- 
cal— the  popular  element  is  at  the  least  numerically  equal  with 
the  clerical. 

Such  an  administration  greatly  relieves  the  people — frees 
them  from  needless  burdens.  Why  should  a whole  church  be 
called  away  from  their  daily  avocations  to  settle  every  little 
dispute  or  difficulty,  or  adjust  every  little  question  of  duty  or 

* “ Christian  and  Civic  Economy, ''  i..  23fi. 
f Rev.  George  B.  Cheever,  D.D. 


33 


expediency  *'  Or,  since  it  can  not  be  fully  convened  save  on 
the  Sabbath,  why  must  the  holy  hours  be  appropriated  to  the 
business  of  the  week  ? The  Christian  enters  the  church  not  to 
be  a ruler,  or  a judge;  not  to  be  trained  for  the  forum  or  the 
bench  ; but  to  honor  Christ  in  his  ordinances,  and  to  advance 
the  kingdom  of  holiness  among  men.  Freed  from  the  immedi- 
ate  responsibilities  and  burdens  of  the  ruler  and  the  judge,  he 
is  more  at  liberty  to  pursue  his  appropriate  work,  and  secure 
the  higher  ends  of  church  fellowship. 

The  prerogative  of  sitting  in  judgment  on  the  admission  of 
members  to  the  church  is  claimed,  in  some  quarters,  for  all 
the  brethren.  Was  it  so  in  the  beginning?  The  Church  is 
not  a mere  voluntary  organization,  but  a divine  institution. 
The  ordinances  of  baptism  and  the  Lord’s  Supper  are  of  Christ. 
Admission  to  these  sacraments  is  a holy  privilege  ; exclusion 
from  them  an  awfully  serious  thing.  Are  the  body  of  the 
faithful,  in  any  church  as  ordinarily  constituted,  young  and 
old,  learned  and  unlearned,  experienced  or  inexperienced,  pro- 
perly qualified  to  determine  such  questions?  Where  in  the 
New  Testament  does  it  appear,  that  the  question  of  admission 
to  the  ordinances  was,  in  any  case,  decided  by  the  suffrages  of 
the  brethren  already  admitted  ? Is  there  any  such  case  on  the 
sacred  record?  Was  baptism  administered  only  on  the  vote 
of  the  congregation  ? 

The  numerous  details  of  church  discipline  call  for  the  exer- 
cise of  the  highest  wisdom.  As  in  the  judiciary,  it  is  safer  far 
to  commit  the  supervision  of  such  affairs  to  a bench  of  prudent 
men,  selected  with  special  reference  to  their  fitness  for  such  a 
work.  Great  injury  is  often  done  to  religion,  by  the  publicity 
given  to  matters  of  indelicacy,  that  transpire  in  the  trial  of 
scandals  before  a church.  We  greatly  prefer  that  such  pro- 
cesses should  be  conducted  with  as  little  of  publicity  as  the 
ends  of  truth  require.  A participation  in  the  responsibilities 
of  an  ecclesiastical  tribunal  is  by  no  means  needful  to  the 
Christian’s  growth.  The  members  of  our  own  churches,  we 
think,  show  their  profiting  cpiite  as  much  as  others. 

To  the  pastor  of  a church  the  eldership  is  of  incalculable 
service.  Often  called  to  act,  in  circumstances  demanding  no 
small  amount  of  caution,  prudence,  and  judgment,  on  the  one 
hand,  or  of  energy,  promptness,  and  dispatch,  on  the  other,  he 
3 


34 


finds  in  his  eldership  the  very  best  counsel  that  the  case  ad- 
mits. Many  of  the  pastors  of  New-England  have  lamented 
this  defect  in  the  policy  of  their  churches.  It  takes  away,  in 
many  instances,  the  temptation,  on  the  part  of  the  pastor,  of 
assuming  the  responsibility  of  exercising  the  people’s  power 
without  reference  or  consultation — of  exercising  the  one-man 
power. 

A distinguished  divine  of  A ew- England,' * gave  expression, 
150  years  ago,  to  his  forebodings,  in  these  words:  ‘‘When 
churches  have  some  hundreds  of  souls  under  their  discipline, 
but  the  single  pastors  are  not  strengthened  with  consistories  of 
elders,  or  an  agreeable  number  of  wise  and  good  and  grave 
men,  chosen  to  join  with  the  pastor  as  their  president  in  that 
part  of  his  work  which  concerns  the  well-ruling  of  the  dock, 
there  discipline  will  by  degrees  be  utterly  lost;  the  grossest 
offenders  will  by  degrees,  and  through  parties,  be  scarce  to  be 
dealt  withal. ”f  A faithful  eldership,  while  it  abridges  nothing 
of  the  just  liberties  of  either  pastor  or  people,  is  an  invaluable 
blessing  to  them  both,  and  to  the  Church  at  large. 

For  this  system,  therefore,  in  view  of  the  principles  thus  ex- 
hibited, we  claim  a large-hearted  and  scriptural  catholicity; 
a jealous  regard  for  the  rights  and  principles  of  its  membership, 
..its  ministers,  and  its  churches,  with  the  most  ample  provision 
for  their  security  and  defense;  a holy  jealousy,  also,  for  the 
purity  in  faith  and  manners,  the  piety  and  the  power  of  the 
pulpit;  with  the  most  effective  arrangements  for  prompt  and 
energetic  action  on  the  part  of  the  individual  church,  and  for 
the  utmost  combination  of  the  energies  of  the  whole  denomi- 
nation, in  the  work  of  publishing  the  Gospel  to  every  creature. 

As  a system  of  church  order,  our  ecclesiastical  polity  is  all 
that  we  can  desire.  It  is  the  growth  of  acres.  It  is  the  fruit  of 
a world’s  experience.  Its  love  for  the  past  blinds  it  not  to  the 
riper  fruits  of  a coming  era.  Whatever  of  wisdom  can  bo 
gained  in  the  future,  it  may  easily  and  orderly  appropriate. 
Its  frame-work  is  elastic.  It  provides  a safe  and  ready  mode 
for  the  incorporation  of  new  forms,  and  the  modifying  of  the 
old,  at  the  will  of  the  people.  It  adapts  itself  to  every  phase 
of  society.  It  is  at  home  everywhere.  It  works  to  a charm  in 


* Rov.  Cotton  Mather,  D.D. 
f “Tho  Panoplist,”  x.,  324. 


(lie  single  church.  nor  less  admirably  in  file  widest  expansion 
of  the  confederacy  of  churches.  It.  is  Jilted  peculiarly  for  the 
indefinite  extension  of  the  Redeemer's  kingdom.  It.  may  co- 
operate with  other  organizations,  or  pursue  the  work  bv  itself. 
It  is  a voluntary  combination  of  churches,  presbyteries,  and 
synods,  pledged  at  (rod's  altar  to  the  high  and  holy  work  of 
promoting  the  cause  of  Christ,  as  God  shall  give  them  oppor- 
tunity. It  needs  no  other  organism  for  the  work  of  bringing 
forward  and  sustaining  its  candidates  for  the  ministry,  of  fur- 
nishing the  churches  with  a godly  literature,  of  exploring  the 
waste  places,  planting  new  churches,  and  sustaining  them  in 
our  own  land,  and.  in  a word,  of  instituting  and  supporting 
missions  wherever  man  is  found,  in  Christian  and  in  heathen 
lands.  It  is  a world-converting  institution.  It  needs  but  the 
breath  from  heaven,  the  living  soul,  the  Spirit's  mighty  im- 
pulses, the  heart,  the  will — to  make  it  all  that  any  system  can 
be. 

Pure  and  scriptural  in  her  faith,  regenerate  in  her  member- 
ship. served  at  her  altars  with  a learned  and  godly  ministry, 
simple  in  her  worship,  strict  and  equal  in  her  discipline,  effi- 
cient in  her  government,  beautiful  for  situation,  the  joy  of  the 
whole  earth,”  is  the  Church  of  our  love,  the  habitation  of  our 
God. 


